Thursday, April 18, 2013

WITHOUT 80-20, would Obama STILL have doubled the number of Asian Am life-tenured federal judges AND raised the no. of AsAm Appeals Court judges from 0 to 3?

WITHOUT 80-20, would the US Labor Dept. STILL have promised in writing to enforce affirmative action laws for us in workplaces, which an Asian Am former Labor Sec., Elaine Chou, refused to do for you?

WITHOUT 80-20, would the quota on Asian Am students by colleges STILL have been challenged by 80-20 in the Supreme Court, while many AsAm "civil rights" orgs actually filled on the other side?

REMEMBER, none of the AsAm past and present elected officials have said a word, much less take actions, about these big issues! Indeed, the bigger the issues, the quieter our "civil rights" orgs and elected officials become!!!

That was WHY 80-20 WAS ESTABLISHED. That was why I gave 14 years of my life to DEMONSTRATE that Asian Ams can fight for ourselves.

But now 80-20 is dying. Why?Reason 1: When 80-20 has demonstrated that it is politically effective, 99.99999% of the 15 million Asian Ams didn't pour out their support to make it a powerful and permanent weapon in our possession. 80-20 still operated on a shoe-string.

Reason 2: I'll soon be 76. The lack of a proper community response deters others from willing to take my (thankless) job. Our community fails to understand or care about its own BIG interests.

That is why 80-20 is dying. As a result, I am forced to speak frankly to SIGNIFICANT PERSON(s) like you to ask for help. Unless people like you are willing to take a LARGER burden to help, 80-20 will die. Could a good organization emerge later? Maybe, but what is its odds?

80-20 needs to be infused with millions of dollars for it to live and serve you, your children and the children of your children effectively.

I admit my grievous faults. I failed to find a good leader to take over. What if we both keep on trying till 2016? We'll do our best. The three IEC elected members, Charles Zhang, Kathleen To & I have each donated $5,000 to PAC this month. Will YOU also try to raise some REAL money for us? WHY? The only way 80-20 can be kept alive is a well-paid staff and Executive Director. That's how the Jewish community does!

In the short-term, 80-20 still shines. The pending Supreme Court decision in June will likely favor us. But the long-term picture is still dark.

When significant people like you step forth to help, odds change. We at 80-20 have sacrificed for many years, YOU NEED TO HELP NOW. NOBLESSE OBLIGE! I'd love to hear from you please. :-)

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

S. B. Woo was a panelist at Columbia Law School participating in a debate on "Fisher vs. U. of TX", organized by Columbia Asian Pacific American law students. His opponent was Khin Mai Aung of AALDEF.

S.B.'s opening statement, which was limited to 4 minutes, is shown below:

"When Affirmative Action was first proposed, minorities loved it. After all, Affirmative Action means: Owing to the historic wrongs done by the majority, minorities will have some advantage in (1) workplace hiring & promotion, (2) government contracts, & (3) college & school admissions.

HOWEVER, BAD implementation of the affirmative college admission program has ACTUALLY made it ANTI-affirmative. I'll submit to you 2 powerful statistical facts.

Fact 1: Princeton professor Thomas Espenshade found that in order for AsAm students to gain equal access to elite colleges, their AVERAGE score must be 140 pts. higher than whites; 270 pts. higher than Hispanics, and 450 pts. higher than blacks. Think! Why should AsAm applicants score higher than whites? Isn't that ANTI-affirmative? Isn't that blatant discrimination against us?

Fact 2: UCLA & Purdue professors have found that even black and Hispanic students admitted through a strong racial preference suffered from "ACADEMIC MIS-Match." Professors teach to the middle of the class. Students whose ACADEMIC training is way below the average, can't follow. So such students mostly either switched out of their chosen major in Law and STEM disciplines or failed to graduate. AGAIN, isn't that ANTI-affirmative?

Ms. Aung mentioned the advantages of diversity. No argument. But must diversity be achieved at the expense of Asian Am. students? Isn't the 14th amendment for the equal protection of all Americans a more important consideration than diversity?

Ms. Aung CLAIMED that Hmong students might have benefited from the program. If so, for every Hmong student to benefit, a HUGE number of other AsAm students must suffer a disadvantage. BECAUSE only under such an extremely distorted ratio of beneficiaries vs. those who were damaged could the AVERAGE score, I repeat the AVERAGE score, for AsAm students still be 140 pts. higher than whites.

Finally, let's get a historic perspective. The Am's Revolution for independence was opposed by some American colonists. Women's suffrage was strongly opposed by many society women of that period. Field-slaves' plans to escape were often betrayed by house- slaves. Strange! How a people's struggle for equal opportunity and freedom is often opposed by some of its own members. It's strange indeed. END!"

Asian Am. orgs' EARLIER support for an "affirmative college admission" policy was UNDERSTANDABLE. Their CONTINUED support of the same is UNCONSCIONABLE, after the policy's anti-Asian Am. practices and its damaging effect of academic mismatch were known. The following larger AsAm orgs. still filed amicus briefs in the Supreme Court to support the current admission plan: